#not-self

[deepinsamsara]

"If you think about it, it’s weird. If you can’t even control your own mind, then who is controlling it? If you don’t decide to get distracted, then who does? If you think you have a “self” that owns the body and mind, then what is it, exactly? Why does it have so little influence?" -Bodhipaksa

[deepinsamsara]

[billynyc]

The Not-Self Changing and Free

Mid-Term Paper for Coursera: Buddhism and Modern Psychology. Prof Robert Wright. Paper by Bill Siegfried, Aug 2016

Q: The Buddha makes the claim, which may draw some support from modern psychology, that the self does not exist. Describe the self that the Buddha says does not exist and explain the Buddha's principal argument against it. Do you agree or disagree with the Buddha’s argument that this kind of self doesn’t exist? Or are you unable to take a position? Give two specific reasons for your view, and explain why your reasons support either the existence of the self or the non-existence of the self, or why they explain why you are unable to take a position on the question.

A: The Not-Self Changing and Free

The Buddha’s argument for the not-self (or anatman) is based on 5 aggregates - form (body), feelings, perception, mental formation and consciousness which he says lack persistence and control. If the self is defined by the continuity through time and the ability to control each of these aggregates then the self does not exist. 

I find my head wanting explode upon tackling this concept :). However, if I take the two criteria of the self as being solidly consistent with the ability to control my body, feeling, etc. then I would have to agree with the Buddha - “This is not mine, I am not this; this is not my self.” 

Myself as an adult has changed since I was a child if i look through the five aggregates. I have physically grown, no longer collect Garfield comics or have the perception that Hostess cupcakes and a Coke are the best school lunches. 

If control or under control is also part of the self, then I too must concede with the not-self argument. While I can deny that my body is aging through refusing to get reading glasses at 40 or that I am not filled with anxiety when my partner decides to “wander" from the driving directions my type A personality so carefully has researched and printed out, my awareness indicates otherwise. My eyes grow older and my worry grows to anger (you’re going the wrong way!). I have very little control in both cases. However, if I practice the concept of not-self, I could literally see better and might actually enjoy the wanderlust. 

These examples of change and lack of self control support the Buddha’s claim that self, as defined by him, does not exist. The acceptance of this claim is quite revolutionary (even if an ancient ideas) and I’m not completely sold on it. My self wants to attach, wants something more. Yet, it’s in the letting go, that allows much to be explored.   

[gsharm1]

The three characteristics are as follows:

Impermanence (anicca)

Insubstantiality or “not-self” (anatta)

Frustration or suffering (dukkha)

They are all interlinked and interdependent. Samsaric existence is frustrating because we experience not only suffering, but pleasures which are impermanent and insubstantial. We, the experiencers of the pleasures, are also ourselves impermanent and insubstantial. It is our continual failure to take this into account which makes us unenlightened.

[smokesignalsfromthehill]

Buddhist humor

[rainbowtwo]

The Deceptive Ego

‘In our day-to-day lives, we experience the self through its vulnerability. A simple smile gives it instant pleasure and a scowl achieves the contrary. The self is always “there,” ready to be wounded or gratified. Rather than seeing it as multiple and elusive, we make it unitary, central, and permanent. But let’s consider what it is we suppose contributes to our identity. Or body? An assemblage of bones and flesh. Our consciousness? A continuous stream of instants. Our history? The memory of what is no more. Our name? We attach all sorts of concepts to it - our heritage, our reputation, and our social status - but ultimately it’s nothing more than a grouping of letters. When we see the word John, our spirits leap; we think, “That’s me!” But we only need to separate the letters, J-o-h-n, to lose all interest. The idea of “our” name is just a mental fabrication.

It is the deep sense of self lying at the heart of our being that we have to examine honestly. When we explore the body, the speech, and the mind, we come to see that this self is nothing but a word, a label, a convention, a designation. The problem is, this label thinks it’s the real deal. To unmask the ego’s deception, we have to pursue our inquiry to the very end. When you suspect the presence of a thief in your house, you have to inspect every room, every corner, every potential hiding place, just to make sure there’s really no one there. Only then can you rest easy. We need introspective investigation to find out what’s behind the illusion of the self that we think defines our being.

Rigorous analysis leads us to conclude that the self does not reside in any part of the body, nor is it some diffuse entity permeating the entire body. We willingly believe that the self is associated with consciousness, but consciousness too is an elusive current; in terms of living experience, the past moment of consciousness is dead (only its impact remains), the future is not yet, and the present doesn’t last. How could a distinct self exist, suspended like a flower in the sky, between something that no longer exists and something that does not yet exist? It cannot be detected in either the body or the mind; it is neither a distinct entity in a combination of the two, not one outside of them. No serious analysis or direct introspective experience can lead to a strong conviction that we possess a self. Someone may believe himself to be tall, young, and intelligent, but neither height nor youth nor intelligence is the self. Buddhism therefore concludes that the self is just a name we give to a continuum, just as we name a river the Ganges or the Mississippi. Such a continuum certainly exists, but only as a convention based upon the interdependence of the consciousness, the body, and the environment. It is entirely without autonomous existence.’

- Matthieu Ricard, Happiness.

[rainbowtwo]

The Ordinary Self

‘Holding to an ordinary notion of self, or ego, is the source of all our pain and confusion. The irony is that when we look for this "self" that we're cherishing and protecting, we can't even find it.’

- Dzigar Kongtrül Rinpoche, Searching for Self.